It is quite obvious that Catholics do not follow many things in the Bible. They look at the Church as the one that sets all standards. Why is it so?
Odd question, to the outsider. Maybe you could answer a question, too. Mine is;
It is quite obvious that Protestants do not follow many things that their Savior mandated. They look at their ego as the one that sets all standards. Why is it so?
because to be a christian is to deny ones self. If self were easy to deny then christianity, i suppose would be so very easy. Sanctification is a process not an immediate transformation, this is because, God is so very gentle with our free will and wants us to choose Him - not be forced or blessed into the kingdom because it is something we need to choose, in this choosing we express our love for Him.
If anyone thinks that denying ego is easy then they should be a christian and soon discover that self is in everything people do.
Well that's interesting augustine72. Why would Catholics have put things in the Bible if they were going to ignore them?
Catholics did not put things in the Bible. The Bible was written by many authors - the Apostles and disciples of Jesus if the first century
There were many, many documents which could have made their way into the Bible but the ones we have now, were the ones chosen by the Church then; the ones which were deemed to be true and valid. The protestants have long been convincing themselves that the Bible somehow assembled itself and that Catholics, for some mysterious reason, ignore it.
When most people think of Bible-Christians, they usually mean those in the Protestant denominations. They "own" the Bible, right? And the Church really does not want us to read the bible, right again? Well, wrong. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The Bible was written for the Catholics, and interpreted infallibly only by the teaching authority vested by Jesus in the Catholic Church.
"It was declared by the Vatican Council (Sess. III, c. ii) that the sacred and canonical character of Scripture would not be sufficiently explained by saying that the books were composed by human diligence and then approved by the Church, or that they contained revelation without error. They are sacred and canonical "because, having been written by inspiration of the Holy Ghost, that have God for their author, and as such have been handed down to the Church." The inerrancy of the Bible follows as a consequence of this Divine authorship. Wherever the sacred writer makes a statement as his own, that statement is the word of God and infallibly true, whatever be the subject-matter of the statement.
It will be seen, therefore, that though the inspiration of any writer and the sacred character of his work be antecedent to its recognition by the Church yet we are dependent upon the Church for our knowledge of the existence of this inspiration. She is the appointed witness and guardian of revelation. From her alone we know what books belong to the Bible. At the Council of Trent she enumerated the books which must be considered "as sacred and canonical." FRANCIS E. GIGOT, The Catholic Encyclopedia.
And yet the Bible is perceived as a "Protestant" book. The reason for that is because the Bible was claimed by the Protestants as their sole rule of faith during the Reformation, rejecting the authority of the Catholic Church.
It also became "known" to non-Catholics that Catholics rejected the Bible and that the Church did not encourage reading the Bible. In fact even from the early church, popes, councils, priests and scholars have encouraged Bible reading.
Another reason why non-Catholics, or even Catholics who do not know history, had the wrong perception that the Church did not encourage the lay people to read the Bible was the story that at the early Church the Bibles were chained down. Now, let me ask you. Have you seen the phone directory at phone booths? Why are secured? To prevent the books from "walking away," right? You have to remember that in the early Church there were no mass printing presses. Every letter in the old books, including the Bible was painstakingly copied by monks in monasteries by hand, in all their glorious illumination – a task that sometimes takes years to complete. There was little wonder then why the Bibles were chained down.
Unless I'm mistaken, the Catholic church stood firmly against the Bible being translated into a language the average person could read. Wasn't Tyndale branded a heretic?
If the Bibles were chained down to prevent theft, people may have wanted the book for reasons other than study.
Yes that's right Emile. Latin was the language of the church in every country of the world that had Catholicism. It was intended that everyone part of this universal group spoke the same language. The people who went to church also understood Latin, else they wouldn't have been able to participate in the Mass. Bibles stories were all taught by word of mouth.
Church music was also guarded carefully and taught by ear rather than be written down. Nor could it be removed from the church itself. This is why Mozart was excommunicated actually. He listened to the Miserere, went home and wrote it down, all 14 minutes of it, note for note. Genius on his part, but completely against the rules unfortunately. A bit strict by today's standards, to be sure, but nevertheless an example of how Catholic liturgy was entirely about physical manifestations.
Good point. Maybe you're right about that.
Does the Catholic Church encourage laymen's interpretation of the Scriptures, though?
That's all there is, is layman's interpretations, including the morons who did the original translation.
Words that couldn't be translated were left out. Words that didn't have words in any language were left out.
So, ALL interpretations of ancient scripture is layman interpretations.
Catholics are encouraged to read the Bible sure. When you say 'laymens interpretations' how far do you go? Some people read the Bible and conclude that there was a thing between Jesus and Mary Magdelene, or Jesus and Judas, or that polygamy is ok, or that Mary wasn't a virgin. Those kind of interpretations are not ok with Catholics, no. Catholics come from the point of view of...'here's what we believe, now here's the Bible for further reading on the subject.' The book must agree with the practice, not the other way around, if you know what I mean.
You said "The book must agree with the practice, not the other way around, if you know what I mean."
If so how do we know that the practices are right?
If the Christians who compiled the words of Holy scripture were right about the Gospels, their practices must also have been true. Or do you think that those Christians were right about the Bible but wrong about their religious practices? Was God guiding them in one thing,but not another?
The early Christians were guided by the Holy spirit when they decided on 4 Gospels, out of a possible 17. That is what you believe and what I believe. Those same people and their practices are the foundation of the RC church.
You misunderstand me. The book and the practices of the church does NOT match. There are practices that the book says is wrong but the church says is right. So which one is right? The book? The Church?
augustine, I don't know which practices within the church you're talking about. Like I said before, the church chose which things to put in the Bible and therefore is in agreement with everything therein. During the reformation, the protestants removed parts of the Bible they didn't agree with.
But a book is a book, not a living thing. Not something which in itself, has the capacity to give you the truth. If that were the case, why would so many people have different interpretations of the Bible? Truth is in action, and it's through your God-given conscience that you see the truth within action. Words get lost in translation, but not actions. That's why Jesus chose not to write anything down, despite his scholarly abilities.
The beginning of Christianity was marked by the decent of the Holy Spirit. A holy book did not descend upon the disciples. Christianity came alive with the gift of absolute faith.
So in answer to your question, the Church, which is made up of living people, has to be as right as, or more right than the book.
The book, because every word in the Bible is God-breathed, and the Bible even says that man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God
The Bible was written for the Catholics, and interpreted infallibly only by the teaching authority vested by Jesus in the Catholic Church.
First the Bible was not written for the Catholics but it was written for everyone. Next the idea that Jesus Christ has vested anything on the Catholic church is false. That is one of the errors taught by the Catholic system. It is a misinterpretation of the Bible.
From her alone we know what books belong to the Bible. At the Council of Trent she enumerated the books which must be considered "as sacred and canonical."
I do not disagree that the Bible was canonized by the Catholic Church. That is how God works. The Israel people were slaves of the Egyptians. But the man who would free then was an Israelite and was brought up in the pharaoh's house. Similarly God used the Catholic Church to compile the Bible.
It also became "known" to non-Catholics that Catholics rejected the Bible
That Catholicism does not follow the Bible is an obvious fact. The Bible says that we have one authority and that is Jesus Christ. The Bible says that the one who gives us revelation is the Holy Spirit. But the Catholic Church teaches that it is the authority and interpretation can only come from it. If that is not rejection of the Bible what is?
and that the Church did not encourage reading the Bible.
That is also obvious if you study your history. Also how much Bible studies do the priests do in all the years of their study in the seminary? Hardly any!
Every letter in the old books, including the Bible was painstakingly copied by monks in monasteries by hand, in all their glorious illumination – a task that sometimes takes years to complete. There was little wonder then why the Bibles were chained down.
Can I ask you something? You agree that the Bible could be translated by the glorious illumination or inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Why would the Holy Spirit inspire or illuminate only Catholics for this task? What makes you think that John Wycliffe was not inspired by the Holy Spirit?
Freegoldman, precisely! Brilliantly explained.
Most Christians don't follow the Bible. If they did they'd be stoning people to death for working the Sabbath and hating their families (Jesus says you have to love him more than your family or you're not worthy of him).
That doesn't actually mean to HATE your mom or dad, because of course you should love one another. That just means to sort of "hate" the relationship of mother/daughter, i.e., just because your mom's your mom doesn't mean you should put her above anyone else like your friends or your other relatives, because all believers are brothers and sisters in Christ. There shouldn't have to be anyone above anyone else.
The Catholics and other Christians should believe and act on what Jesus and Mary believed in and acted upon; rather than the Church and Bible.
First off most Catholics never pick up a bible and read it.
Therefore they only know the verses here and there that the priest deals with and nothing more.
Second The Roman Catholic Church twists things and takes things out of context from the bible to suit its own purpose.
Third Catholics are taught that The Pope is infalible so that any teaching, any church policy from the pope is 100% right and correct. WRONG! for instance when I grew up as a Catholic, on Friday no Catholic was permitted to eat meat. It was a church policy from some Pope. then 10 15 years later, it was OK to eat meat on Friday except for Good Friday, the day Jesus was crucified. Another one, no woman was permitted to enter the church with her head bare. She had to wear a hat or a scarf.
Just recently: The Catholic church declared that a person who committed suicide, this was no longer a sin. WHY? Because they were not in their right mind, and God could not hold them accountable for their actions.
Those of us Catholic, myself being one that do read and know the bible are Christians First and catholic second, and rebel or speakout against wrongful Catholic teachings such as these.
I think the Catholics you rebel and speak out against might not take kindly to that as they are probably just as passionate about what they believe as you believe.
It's not very likely either side will back down. How far are both parties prepared to escalate their rebellion of one another? War?
That last sentence is a beautiful statement, Brother Dave. I daresay there aren't many like you?
You're doing a good work for the Lord.
The Catacism of the Catholic Church says the Pope is guided by the Holy Spirit which is infallable in faith and morals. But the Pope is fallable in the laws of the church which he can change such as; if priests can marry or not, abstaining from meat on Fridays. Hope this clears this up.
I think it's because so many of them are not white. The Catholic church is growing most rapidly among the black and brown populations, whereas the Protestants (with the exception of their former property) have largely remained white and pure -like God himself.
In stead of looking to Church and Bible; the Christians should do what Jesus and Mary did and taught; neither the Church nor the Bible present true teachings and acts of Jesus and Mary.
THEY ARE MORE OR LESS LIKE IDOL WORSHIPPERS IN MY OWN SENSE,COS HOW CAN U BOW DOWN TO A STATUE U ASSUME TO BE HOLY MARY.
The Church of Rome has always baased its faith more on the authority of the Church and the apostolic tradition, rather than on biblical authority. In fact, for centuries, the Roman Church did everything it could to prevent people reading the Bible, including preventing it being published in native languages, and burning those who tried to do so. It was illegal to own a Bible in any language other than Latin. It was the Protestant Reformation which began the tradition of Christianity being a religion of the book. Protestants believed that replacing church traditions, by basing their beliefs on the words of the Bible returned Christianity to an earlier state, one which would have been recognised by the Apostles. It is for this reason, than Protestant churches have taught the authority of the Bible and have printed it in all native languages. However, there is no Christian demomination which follows every word of the Bible. Christians tend to pick and choose which parts of the Bible to live their lives by, and which to ignore. Some of the laws in the Bible are absurd, and to follow the letter of the law would prove impossible.
Well answered. You summed up the reality and truth behind the facts rather nicely. I just wanted to express my appreciation for your wide diversity of knowledge about the different Christian sects and you seem very well versed in the true history of Christianity. Thank you for providing this educational information.
If I discuss the Catholic Church and their fraud then you all will hate me even more.... so maybe I should sit this one out.
I will simply say one thing... syncretism.
Something neither of us uses. Amen.
I'm thinkin' of making a license plate that reads I will not be syncretized! haha
It is the way of the deciever.
Most think to look for the polar opposite of Christ and the word of God... that is not it, it is a perversion of the word and a slight twisting of his being that one must guard against.
Who's going to hate you? As far as I can see almost everyone is anti-Catholic on this forum. Anyway, keep up the puritanism. McCarthy would have been proud.
Hi lizzieboo. In fairness to the forum, there are only a few who are anti catholic (they are simply vocal). A lot of people are anti all religion, and then a few who are anti everything not purely atheistic.
Don't feel persecuted.
Thanks Emile. You always have a measured approach to things.
Not always, but when I find myself deviating from that goal I try to find my way back.
But, I wanted to tell you. I'm beginning to get your point and if I understand you correctly I agree with your approach. It is important to understand what the goal is you seek in your search, so if the Catholic church is trying to standardize the jumping point and reign in the laymen interpretation to keep them from pushing people over the edge of reason (as many fundamentalist interpretations do), then I applaud the efforts.
I dont see Anti-Catholic,its mostly Anti-God though.
I guess everyone is ignorant ,except me
Y'a know the wierd thing, or unfortunate thing lizzieBoo is this, the older we get ,whether in years or maturity ,prejudices set in,because I was just thinking recently.
When I growing up,my very best friend and I used to as close as natural sisters, we had known each other since we were born,in fact our mothers were friend.
We went to different churches and never questioned it as affecting our friendship over the years. Even when she left to attend a Catholic college ,and I a different one ,still we never questioned anything and our friendship just flourished despite our different religions.
So why ,as adults do so many bicker over this n that and God meant this and God didnt say that etc etc.
Generally speaking,we are less tolerant as adults ,I think.
We will all find out the answers to everything in due time,but for now all we have is each other ,why not like/love/care and do the best to help one another.
( Funny thing about our friendship is neither of us really understood too much about either Religion, )
@ Dave Mattews: I also grew up Catholic but I think it is wrong to assume the majority of Catholics do not read the Bible. You can say this about any religion. Too many people prefer their Dogma pre-chewed so they don't have to think and follow along blindly. All faiths take what they want from whichever Holy book they have and twist it to suit their needs. It's the faith you have that counts and knowing in your heart God's truth. Too many are truly sheep amongst wolves.
My comment was addressed to someone else and not you and if you bothered to read my comment I said "MOST" Catholics not "ALL" therefore my statement was correct. By the way if you address me again I'd really appreciate it if you would spell my last name my family name correctly it is MATHEWS not what you wrote, Mattews. One more thing:
Most Catholics will seldom or never check out the scriptures that the Mass is dealing with because they are to lazy to pick one up and read it for themselves.
Dave, you're right that Catholics are very bad at reading the Bible on its own. As you know, the faith is not centred around the book, but the Mass. But lets think of what the Mass is comprised of : 2 scriptual readings and a reading from one of the Gospels, then there is a homily, in which the priest reflects on the Gospel, followed by the consecration, which is the re-enactment of the Last Supper. Every word that is used in Mass you will find in Holy scripture. Different scriptual passages are used every day of the year, since a priest is obliged to say mass every day, regardless of anyone else being present. Devout Catholics often chose to go to every Mass of the year as part of their prayerful lifestyle. But what this means is that the Bible gets pretty good coverage throughout a persons lifetime, should they chose to be so dedicated, without the need to study up on it in their own time.
There are plenty of lazy Catholics, certainly. Not reading the Bible is the least of their worries. How much effort does it take to sit at home and read a book? You recieve graces though Christian living. It doesn't matter if you know the Bible off by heart, numbers and everything; if you don't live it you don't live it.
lizzieBoo: I can agree with most of what you say, although there is scripture taken out of context in at least one part. What saddens me about catholics is that there are catholic doctorines taught that do not agree with Bible scriptures and furthermore the catholic church twists scriptures putting their own spin on certain scripture trying to justify the doctorine taught. This is totally wrong. I could quote you book chapter and verse to backup what I say but you probably would not accept it as truth. There are also catholic church rites performed, that could be performed by a lae-person but the priest insists upon doing them, why? I think maybe for money, or maybe to simply say it was done by the church. I am catholic, but first and foremost, I am a Christian, a born again dedicated follower of Jesus Christ. As a Christian, I Evangelize to others as Christ has ordered, either in a face to face, or through my Hubs here on Hub Pages. I invite you to take a look and see for yourself.
Let me make it clear that I am not against any catholics but against the catholic system. Let me comment on some of the things you said.
"As you know, the faith is not centred around the book, but the Mass."
We know that the New Testament was written by the Apostles and those who had close people who were closely associated with them. Could you tell me where the rituals in the mass originated from? What about the symbols on the Eucharist? What do they mean? The concept of transubstantiation where did it come from? I ask this because you said "Every word that is used in Mass you will find in Holy scripture.".
You said "But what this means is that the Bible gets pretty good coverage throughout a persons lifetime, should they chose to be so dedicated, without the need to study up on it in their own time. "
I am sorry I will have to disagree with you. I was a Catholic attending mass for 30 years and didn't know anything about the Bible. This is how most catholics are and you can know this by just asking them a few questions. The Mass does not teach the Bible.
I agree that there are catholics who do not sit and read the Bible. But the church is supposed to encourage them to read from the Bible. It does not teach the people why they are supposed to read it. Why because if they do they will see that the practices of the church and the Bible does not match.
augustine77 and Dave, I must tell you that the ignorance you have about church doctrine is a failure on the part of the modern liberalised church to properly educate its members. You are by no means alone in your experiences. After the implementation of the second vatican council in 1964, people were leaving the church in their droves as it was failing to give clear meanings to things. Also, standards dropped across the board and people were coming to all sorts of silly conclusions about what being Christian meant without any clear direction from the clergy who had become lax. My own families faith has survived by essentially ignoring the move into liberality and maintaining what was true for over a thousand years before.
I am sorry but catholics do believe in the bible only not the protestant one, as henry 8th tore out 8 pages of the catholic bible so that he could achieve a divorce from Katherine of Aragon.. He then proclaimed himself the head of the church of england (protestant)that is why catholics do not believe in the bible.
Well if Catholics do believe in the Bible why do they not follow the teachings of the church that is against the Bible?
I think you come to that conclusion because you do not properly understand either the Bible, or the Catholic teachings that you claim go against it. Don't feel bad. You're not alone in such thinking errors.
You are mistaken. I have pretty good knowledge of both. I have no thinking errors.
Let me take an example. The catholic church says that the head of the church on earth is St.Peter. The Bible does not agree with this. So in this example what is the truth?
I attended a catholic church that has bible studies taught by lay people and sometimes the priest. I've been reading the bible for more than 30 years and have attended prayer groups that worship Jesus alone. There are many catholics who accept and follow Jesus as their lord and savior. So I don't know why you think catholics don't beleive or read the bible? The church encourages us to read the scriptures.
Catholics believe very much in the Bible. I have been a Catholic all my life and I can remember my Grandfather who was also a Catholic setting and reading the Bible to us. Now our Bible had all the books of the Bible and not just those included in the 1611 King James Bible but yes we do read the Bible. I read one in fact quite often.
My parents are spinning in their graves at the OP's assertion that Catholics don't believe in the Bible. Saints preserve us!
We Catholics read it and believe in it but don't thump it. It's kinda anti-Christian to be so aggressive about forcing literal interpretations of the Bible onto the general public.
by Mikel G Roberts 22 months ago
How is it possible that Protestants think Catholics aren't Christians?The earliest Protestant church was the Lutheran Church, named after the Catholic monk Martin Luther. The man that broke away from the only christian church in existence, the Roman Catholic Church. The Roman Catholic Church was...
by boyatdelhi 4 years ago
Is Roman Catholic church truly follow the bible?Where it diverted from the bible?
by Justin Earick 5 years ago
Sodom wasn't smited for homosexuality (false-idol worship, poor treatment of strangers and the poor, gang rape). Leviticus doesn't matter (old covenant, pork, lobster, tattoos, mixed fibers, period sex, swearing). Paul was talking about vastly different subjects (lust, guilt, boy...
by Jon 5 years ago
As a Catholic, I was wondering why is it that every Christian Denominations are lambasting/bashing Catholic doctrines and teachings. This is purely based on my experience when I was still in college when I joined other Christian sect like the Born Again Christians and others.
by Rodric Anthony Johnson 5 years ago
Why do people not understand that the Bible does not contain all of God's word?Are people being purposely taught that the Bible is all containing of God's word. Do people not know the history of the Bible? The book is a collection of unrelated books put together by the catholic church--specifically...
by pisean282311 8 years ago
I have come across few post in which pope has been often criticized..If i am not wrong , isn't pope head of largest chrisitan sect? and is he not considered to be authority?
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|